W
wmw
Guest
Anyone can make idle rumors. None but the Church’s official statements should be taken as more than idle rumor. It’s that simple. Produce an official document to the contrary or stop perpetuating false rumors.
With papal infallibility, why does the Church still has council for issues on Faith and morals?
- Status
L
Leibniz
Guest
But the Church produces tons of official statements. I’ve heard people say whatever is in the Catechism is infallible. I’ve heard people say that whatever is in an encyclical is infallible. I’ve heard people say that whenever the Vatican canonizes a saint, that it becomes an infallible declaration. For the record, I believe none of those things, but I bet you will find other posters on this website who disagree.
M
MarcoPG
Guest
Originally Posted by DL82 View Post
If the Pope is infallible, then the Pope’s decision to call a Council is part of the exercise of that infallibility.
Calling a Council doesn’t need to be infallible on faith and morals. I could do it
The Cathecism is not infallible, it rests on some infallible definitions, but in itself it is fallible and can be rearranged or clarified. That doesn’t mean changing the faith. Encyclicals the same, they may contain something about a dogma, and we would know this. A canonization is irrevocable but not infallible, words have a meaning and shouldn’t be mixed together…People are mostly good-intentioned, but often act out of unclear understandings. That is why I have so many questions, also
If the Pope is infallible, then the Pope’s decision to call a Council is part of the exercise of that infallibility.
Calling a Council doesn’t need to be infallible on faith and morals. I could do it
I can’t see why a Catholic who knows what Infallibility is would say the rest is also infallible. Statements, official or not, are not dogmas; when they are dogmas, we know that they are.
The Cathecism is not infallible, it rests on some infallible definitions, but in itself it is fallible and can be rearranged or clarified. That doesn’t mean changing the faith. Encyclicals the same, they may contain something about a dogma, and we would know this. A canonization is irrevocable but not infallible, words have a meaning and shouldn’t be mixed together…People are mostly good-intentioned, but often act out of unclear understandings. That is why I have so many questions, also
A
Abu
Guest
The confusion here is stark, amateurish and unnecessary. The truth is clear from EWTN’s David Gregson in post #27. Take note and learn.
You can rely on EWTN, answers generally – why stay confused? You can learn from their Summary of Categories of Belief.
The reality is stark:
**Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus Chapter 4. **
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable." [My emphasis].
“We” should follow the Magisterium, and certainly not interfere with infallible statements nor the teaching of St John Paul II in Ad Tuendam Fidem but take the time and trouble to learn the truth. Take note of EWTN’s David Gregson in post #27.
There are many infallible doctrines.
False. See above and the answer from EWTN.
O
onmyknees
Guest
Yes! I have talked to many Catholics and protestants that don’t know that it is the Holy Spirit who guided Peter (the first Pope) and the apostles the first bishops) of the Church into all Truth!
John 16:12 Jesus said, "I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to the complete Truth.
Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit.
L
Leibniz
Guest
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”
LOL. You seem to be making my point for me.
For what it’s worth, I think David Gregson is flat wrong about the canonizations being infallible, and that would be an excellent example where different groups within the Church disagree on what is infallible or not.
(It’s also an issue that relates to a point I was making in that other “Quick Question About Dogma” thread about how what is contained in the original deposit of faith limits what kinds of explanations can be considered infallible in the future.)
Moreover, there is enough gray area in “moral teachings” and “other doctrines” contained within papal encyclicals to drive a truck through. For those who (unlike wmw) believe that popes have taught infallibly within encyclicals, there is nothing even close to a consensus on how wide that infallibility actually reaches.
In sum, the truth is NOT clear.
LOL. You seem to be making my point for me.
For what it’s worth, I think David Gregson is flat wrong about the canonizations being infallible, and that would be an excellent example where different groups within the Church disagree on what is infallible or not.
(It’s also an issue that relates to a point I was making in that other “Quick Question About Dogma” thread about how what is contained in the original deposit of faith limits what kinds of explanations can be considered infallible in the future.)
Moreover, there is enough gray area in “moral teachings” and “other doctrines” contained within papal encyclicals to drive a truck through. For those who (unlike wmw) believe that popes have taught infallibly within encyclicals, there is nothing even close to a consensus on how wide that infallibility actually reaches.
In sum, the truth is NOT clear.
L
Leibniz
Guest
“If the Pope is infallible, then the Pope’s decision to call a Council is part of the exercise of that infallibility.”
I’ve never heard this theory before! Yet another area of disagreement!
I’ve never heard this theory before! Yet another area of disagreement!
S
Seraphim73
Guest
But your statement contradicts itself. It says in one sentecne that the pope called the council and in thew same sentence says the pope “urged” the emperor to call the council. You are certainly welcome to your opinions but you are not welcome to your own set of facts.
“The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at the commandment and will of Princes; without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople)4; without any consultation with him in the case of I. Nice, so far as we know5; and contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome.”
The Nicene and post Nicene Fathers
M
MarcoPG
Guest
Seraphim that is a good point; just I think wmw was saying by “the Pope urged the emperor to call” that without the pope, no Council would have been called. Therefore the pope really called it. I don’t know for sure, but a council could not be called without the secular power involved. I would understand that, for administrational reasons.
I don’t know if the pope could have been unaware of this; what is sur is that these councils weren’t called by popes. It is ok to me, as long as the pope authority is recognized during these councils. Surely, ecumenical councils were not as clear as the later ones, on papal primacy.
I don’t know if the pope could have been unaware of this; what is sur is that these councils weren’t called by popes. It is ok to me, as long as the pope authority is recognized during these councils. Surely, ecumenical councils were not as clear as the later ones, on papal primacy.
C
clem456
Guest
A good place to clarify these questions might be the Catholic Church’s own teaching documents!!
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
A
Abu
Guest
Christ’s Magisterium cannot be compared to “different groups”.
Thus the third paragraph of Ad Tuendam Fidem, St John Paul II, 1998, states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8)
“Can. 752: Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”
You’ve been given the reference – do your homework – learn to listen to the Church if you want to be a real Catholic:
DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
"Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution35 and of fornication.36
“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, **the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), **the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37”
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
- Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
36 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2353.
37 Cf. DS 3315-3319.
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
That shows the absurdity of the feeling expressed.
That Christian Classics Ethereal Library Reference is linked to ccel.org/give Calvin College’s donation page.
No suitable reference for real Catholics and totally unreliable for facts on Catholicism.
L
Leibniz
Guest
Abu, I have serious problems with the way you are behaving in this thread.
This is not the way that you should communicating:
*"The confusion here is stark, amateurish and unnecessary. The truth is clear from EWTN’s David Gregson in post #27. Take note and learn.
You can rely on EWTN, answers generally – why stay confused? You can learn from their Summary of Categories of Belief."*
And neither is this:
“You’ve been given the reference – do your homework – learn to listen to the Church if you want to be a real Catholic:”
This is not an easy topic, and using false braggadocio to assert that it is will not make the situation any better. No matter how much huffing and puffing you can muster, the truth remains that there are gray areas here that you don’t seem ready to acknowledge. For example, many Catholic theologians disagree that the canonizations of saints are infallible, and thus, despite your having defined a category of infallible things that have been declared definitively, you have been unable to demonstrate what exactly falls into such a category.
Where is the official list of the Catholic Church showing what statements are infallible, and which are not? Such an official list does not exist, and because it does not exist, there will necessarily be disagreement among different groups within the Church on what is believed to be included. The best compilation I have ever come across is the book by Ludwig Ott.
If you cannot come up with a better list–and as far as I can tell you haven’t even tried–then I would suggest that you take precautions to restrain your arrogant tone.
This is not the way that you should communicating:
*"The confusion here is stark, amateurish and unnecessary. The truth is clear from EWTN’s David Gregson in post #27. Take note and learn.
You can rely on EWTN, answers generally – why stay confused? You can learn from their Summary of Categories of Belief."*
And neither is this:
“You’ve been given the reference – do your homework – learn to listen to the Church if you want to be a real Catholic:”
This is not an easy topic, and using false braggadocio to assert that it is will not make the situation any better. No matter how much huffing and puffing you can muster, the truth remains that there are gray areas here that you don’t seem ready to acknowledge. For example, many Catholic theologians disagree that the canonizations of saints are infallible, and thus, despite your having defined a category of infallible things that have been declared definitively, you have been unable to demonstrate what exactly falls into such a category.
Where is the official list of the Catholic Church showing what statements are infallible, and which are not? Such an official list does not exist, and because it does not exist, there will necessarily be disagreement among different groups within the Church on what is believed to be included. The best compilation I have ever come across is the book by Ludwig Ott.
If you cannot come up with a better list–and as far as I can tell you haven’t even tried–then I would suggest that you take precautions to restrain your arrogant tone.
C
Cider
Guest
Was a Pope even present at any of the first seven? I can’t remember, but I know for a fact there wasn’t a pope at all of them.
M
MarcoPG
Guest
He could have been represented. At least at Nicea in 325 the pope was there. Can you please link me a source about the absence of the pope during councils? I would appreciate it
C
Cider
Guest
The book The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo D. Davis SJ
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No pope attended any of Seven Councils. This gives a little background on the subject.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
M
MarcoPG
Guest
You are right. I must have read something else and crossed the ideas in my mind I guess
A
Abu
Guest
Such pick and choose, self–described “Catholics” need to listen to Christ Himself: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). Theologians have no authority to dissent from any teaching, and thus no real Catholics will try to place themselves above the Magisterium.
Such dissent against the doctrine quoted – taught by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, authorized by its Prefect Joseph Card. Ratzinger, which taught clearly the reality that ”the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts) are to be held definitively” – shows the ignorance or studied dissent here present.
Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
There have always been “theologians” who have tried to place themselves above the Magisterium and discredit it. It is only those who are ignorant of the role of theologians, or are dissenters, who fall into that grave error.
**Donum Veritatis completely rules out all such dissent: **
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation *Paterna cum benevolentia *[1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”
“The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth.” Donum Veritatis, (Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian) CDF, 1990, 36].
It is only the selfist cafeteria “Catholic” who persists in opposing Catholic doctrine. The genuinely confused acknowledge their errors and assent.
M
meme1961
Guest
Our religion is a religion of both faith and reason, in proper proportion and relationship. A reasoned argument is improved by deep, careful thought, discourse, and peer review. Thus, councils. A council is basically a meeting of some of the greatest living theological scholars on the planet, informed by thousands of years of scholarship. Imagine: all those theological experts sitting down to discuss an issue. The mind boggles, truly it does!I feel a tension here: How to understand that the Church would still need (eventual) future Councils, if there was something to be settled?
Why can’t the Pope just say look, you know and have to believe that I am the ultimative voice about this and cannot be mistaken on this, so a council is not needed, just follow what is revealed to me.
Thank you
When reason cannot fully resolve the question, however, that’s where Papal Infallibility comes in. An infallible, ex-cathedra statement is rarely issued, but when done so, it almost always clarifies the proper relationship between dogma, which can be somewhat abstract and generic, and some specific incident, instance or question.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I don’t know why. I don’t see papal infallibility and (potential) infallibility of a council as opposed to one another. Papal infallibility does not subsume council infallibility.
- Status